Thursday, September 11, 2008

How Can One Be So Opinioinated?

With the presidential race running at full strength, you hear political arguments and opinions constantly. This makes me wonder, how can someone be so supportive of one candidate or party? It seems impossible that a person can agree with every aspect of one presidential candidate and disagree with every view of the opposite party. This makes me wonder, do people know each candidate’s position on every topic and just choose to ignore the views of topics they agree with of the candidate’s they don’t support and vice versa. Or if it’s just the fact they don’t know all the positions that the candidate they support takes. If that’s the case, everything comes down to how much you know about the topic. You could completely agree with the main positions a candidate stands on an issue, but completely disagree with their position on some of the less popular issues, which may be important to you. Therefore, because you know a little about the candidate, you would support him because of the position he takes on the bigger issues, even though you disagree with the candidate’s position on the smaller, but more meaningful to you issues.
While attempting to come up with ideas for my in class essay I wrote on Wednesday, I started to think; in order for a reader to assess the truth of a narrative, they need to know a decent amount of information about what the narrative is about. If you are reading about a topic you are clueless on, then you won’t know what the author is writing about is true or not. Therefore, your whole perception on the issue that the narrative is about could be based solely off whether or not you knew about the issue.
These two topics connect because whether your view is on a presidential candidate or how truthful a narrative is, it is all based off your knowledge of the topic you’re judging.

1 comment:

Mr. Lawler said...

Nice job tying your thoughts on the election back to the in-class essay prompt. The prompt is designed to bring up an important issue for our course; it essentially asks, "How do you read an artifact? How do you know the truth of a narrative?"

You might also ask yourself: "How do I know when a politician is telling us a 'true' narrative?" What makes a particular politician convincing?